[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2142]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2267, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. JIM KOLBE

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 29, 1997

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, a considerable amount of misinformation has 
dominated the 245(i) program debate. I'd like to set the record 
straight: 245(i) does not give anyone amnesty, it does not undermine 
the Immigration Reform and Control Act, and it does not jeopardize 
national security.
  Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows 
prospective family- and employment-based immigrants to adjust their 
status to that of permanent residents while remaining in the United 
States. That's the sole function of the program. The $1,000 adjustment 
fee that is collected from prospective immigrants is used by the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] to provide detention space 
for criminal aliens, and it pays for INS adjudication staff and 
improved customer service. Last year, the 245(i) program raised almost 
$200 million.
  I do not favor a permanent extension of the 245(i) program. I do 
believe, however, that we must help those that have already petitioned 
for relief under the program. Fairness and humanitarian concerns call 
for no less. But we must identify a date certain in which no new 
petitions will be accepted. There appears to be some legitimacy to the 
claims that petitioners under the 245(i) program enjoy an advantage 
that other prospective immigrants do not. If we cease accepting new 
applications yet process all those currently in the system, then from 
that point forward all intending immigrants would be competing under 
the same rules. This is fair and equitable, and continues this great 
Nation's policy of reunification of families.
  Therefore, I am going to vote against the motion to instruct 
conferees. As Ulysses found out, all is not what it appears to be. Such 
is the effort to instruct conferees. The motion is a not-so-veiled 
attempt to kill the 245(i) program. The motion would tie the hands of 
the conferees and limit our negotiating position in conference. We need 
to be placed in the situation where we can negotiate a reasonable, 
workable, and prudent solution. In fact, there are thousands of people 
expecting us to do so.

                          ____________________